Jump to content

smallspy

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    10,007
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto, Ont.

Recent Profile Visitors

17,436 profile views
  1. Speak for yourself. Most of us appreciate correct info, not speculation and opinion disguised as information. In fairness.... There's more to the program change than just the doors closing more slowly. For instance, the amount of time that the doors need to stay open has also been reduced. In a best-case scenario, the time that the car stops to the time that the car is able to leave is the same. Dan
  2. There is already a trench at the bottom of the ramp, as there has been since the last track reconstruction of 10 or so years ago. Apparently that still isn't enough to stop the vehicles. Dan
  3. Without access to the contract, you have no idea whether this is true or not. None of us do. Dan
  4. Sure, in theory. But that will then present all sorts of other issues - how do you get the staff back to their home divisions? How do you deal with cleaning, sand filling, emptying the fare vending machines, etc.? The safer bet is to just not. Dan
  5. No - they still hold the ultimate capacity of 264 vehicles. The concern comes if there is a situation where every single car needs to be stored overnight. Dan
  6. The fleet size of 264 cars after the options were taken is a very, very specific value - it was arrived at as the total storage capacity of Leslie Barns combined with Roncesvalles and Connaught carhouses after renovations their respective renovations. Anything beyond that would require additional storage facilities which has not been budgeted for. Dan
  7. And also likely how the TTC has done it. Granted you may not be necessarily aware of all of the nuts and bolts of the TTC, but there have been quite a few contracts over the years that have been cancelled and reissued, or at worst completely re-tendered, due to poor performance of the original winning bidder. No, I'm suggesting that those in the public sector may be less aware of how wary we in the private sector are about risk. And that many who have been in the public sector for their whole careers aren't aware of it at all until they talk with coworkers who have been in the private sector. The TTC did take Bombardier to court - but it never got anywhere because the judge told them to keep working out an agreement. And they did. Dan
  8. That's your opinion. And unless you somehow have more access to these contracts than anyone here, is solely that - an opinion. There have certainly been rolling stock deliveries by other manufacturers in recent memory that have done far more poorly than Bombardier did with the streetcar order in Toronto that resulted in the contract being more-or-less completed as written (penalties excepted, of course). I'm not sure how you mean unsuccessfully in this case. Yes, they went to court. Somewhat less publicized was the constant negotiation that the two sides continued with outside of the courtroom, and until fairly recently. And the negotiated settlement that they came to that included a full cash penalty settlement AND additional benefits to the TTC outside of the terms of the contract. Again, that is your opinion - and that's certainly not something that I would share. Maybe you haven't been in the scene for as long, but I can certainly recall seeing and hearing about far worse from other organizations - some manufacturers, and some properties. Perhaps your penalty clauses were poorly written to start with? And as someone who does that kind of thing, you should also be patently aware that if you make the clauses too onerous that you will be likely to reduce the number of respondents to your tenders, right? Or do they not tell you that? Dan
  9. It's not even close to that simple. If it was, why else do you think that the TTC threw out Bombardier's first tender due to "technical deficiencies"? But that's not true either. Bombardier had their shit together throughout the development and design process. And they were more-or-less on track with the production of the first 3 prototype cars. Where they fell down was with the completion of those three cars to a high enough standard that they could be accepted by the TTC, and also with some design changes as requested by ACAT. And then production of the rest of the cars quite obviously did not go nearly as well as it should have, although credit where credit is due - Bombardier managed to clean up their act to the point of just about delivering the final vehicles with their required dates. I don't think that their screw-ups are any more dramatic than those of any of the other manufacturers. But when you focus on one place (in this case, Toronto), and the focus there is on one particular issue (the streetcar deliveries), there is certainly a feeling of not being able to see the forest for the trees. And, at least with Toronto-centric forums, there is a definite myopia about things that causes problems to get greatly blown out of proportion. (Not to say that it doesn't happen anywhere else - but it's extremely prevalent here.) Dan
  10. The 12 month delay likely has more to do with the amount of time it took the winning bidders to design the structure - 14 or 15 months. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the MTO had a hand in that as well. Dan
  11. So....racism then. Dan
  12. Any additional cars ordered would be under a new contract, with new clauses, and possibly a different penalty structure. Not that Bombardier escaped scot-free on this, because they certainly didn't. And any supposed lack of options for more cars stems more from the uniqueness of Toronto's streetcar network, and not due to Bombardier. And unfortunately, Nfitz is right in one thing - the only company that is currently positioned to be able to deliver new cars (relatively) quickly is Bombardier, as they are the only ones who have shown that they can design a car for the Toronto network. Anyone else is going to have to start from square one on their design. Dan
  13. Connections for the front N/A antenna is what I've been told. Dan
  14. Well, I can answer a couple of the questions at least. There is a bit of a rhyme and reason to initiating pan operation. The major factor is with the overhead at specialwork - once all of those sections on a particular line have been completed, the line can be cleared for pantograph operation. The overhead on the tangent sections does need to be modified as well, but it is not as imperative to the conversion of the line, and for the most part can be done later on after pantograph operation has begun. But not all of the overhead is converted from end-to-end on a line, because they all wear at different rates. So as the individual intersections are rebuilt (and have been rebuilt over the past 5 or 6 years or so), they have been upgraded to the new standard, allowing for both pole and pantograph operation. But this also means that there are other intersections that are left to be done later on, and thus possibly affecting two or more lines. As for Dundas, you're right: it is hardly the busiest route. But a much of the overhead on the line has been upgraded, and thus they are able to state that when the cars come back to the line that they will operate with pantographs up. But as for King, there are still some sections that need to be upgraded before the line can be completely converted. As it stands, everything to the east of Bathurst has been upgraded. I don't know if everything to the west of Bathurst, or north of King, has been done yet. You also bring up diversionary routes - I don't think that they necessarily need to be done for a line to be converted, as any time that the Spadina line has had to be diverted they've put out a message to operators to drop the pans and put up the poles for the diversions (although I think this is no longer strictly the case for all diversions anymore). Dan
  15. The issue with Greenwood is that there isn't enough space for the fleet that is already there. This is why they reactivated Vincent Yard, and why there has been so much pressure to build another yard. It would be no problem to rebuild Greenwood to handle 6-car fixed consists - just like they did with Wilson - but first they would need a place to store a decent amount of the fleet while the work was done. (Which also, incidentally, was a problem with Wilson during the first couple of phases of construction there, too.) Now, that could change should they decide to move the heavy rebuild facility from there, but there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite to do that at this time. It should be patently obvious why things have progressed as they have. Metrolinx has to show that they are better and smarter than everyone else, and the Ontario Line concept is just that. And they've managed to sell Queens Park on it, just as they've managed to sell them on so many other things over the years. (Ask yourself why buses with 20+ year design lives are getting replaced at 10 and 12 years, for instance.) You won't want to take a look at the backlash from the residents along the line, though.... Dan
×
×
  • Create New...